Defending the 'umbrella strategy'

 Doug Bandow of CATO on US defense

. 

The crux of his argument is that America isn’t getting full value from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and other defense pacts. Countries under defense pacts with the United States plow money into popular welfare programs and ignore their military commitments, letting Uncle Sam cover the tab. The ‘umbrella’ that the United States represents for other democratic countries is hugely expensive and becoming more so with the cutbacks hitting the military. I am optimistic that NATO is the best option for curtailing Russia aggression in Eastern Europe and everywhere. America needs to maintain that link even if the pact looks a lot different in twenty years. Asking members to contribute to their portion of the bill is always difficult and messy, diplomacy requires a delicate touch. The precious little help America gets in financial commitments from NATO is better than the nothing they would get without the pact. Intelligence sharing among member countries constitutes real time help even if it isn’t a direct economic benefit. Nations get serious about their security when they have to. Here is Mr. Bandow:

 

Moscow’s aggressive behavior against Georgia and especially Ukraine set off all sorts of angst throughout Europe. U.S. officials and NATO leaders made their usual calls for members to hike military outlays, but most European states did what they usually do, continued to cut spending.

Under normal circumstances European behavior would be mystifying. The European Union demonstrates the continent’s ability to overcome historic national divisions and collaborate for a common purpose.

Collectively the Europeans enjoy around an 8-1 economic and 3-1 population advantage over Moscow. Even after its recent revival, Russia’s military today is a poor replica of that during the Soviet era.

Yet when Moscow acts against non-NATO members Europe’s eyes turn to Washington for military relief. Instead of acting in their presumed interests, they push for U.S. action.

I think Thomas Sowell said that ‘there are no solutions only trade-offs’. It is frustrating how lazy NATO has made much of Western Europe; the trade-off though is non-aligned European countries fighting each other while Russia moves slowly westward. Would a democratic country struggling to keep its economic framework and infrastructure rather be neighbors with Germany or Russia? The answer should be obvious and without a strong NATO Eastern Europe wouldn’t hold up against a belligerent Moscow.  Here is Bandow on Taiwan and Korea:

 

Last week North Korea staged its fourth nuclear test. Naturally, South Korea and Japan reacted in horror. But it was America which acted.

The U.S. sent a Guam-based B-52 wandering across South Korean skies. “This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland,” opined Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., head of Pacific Command.

Unfortunately, the message might not work as intended. CNN’s Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang that “A lot of North Korean military commanders find U.S. bombers especially threatening, given the destruction here in Pyongyang during the Korean War, when much of the city was flattened.” Which sounds like giving the North another justification for building nuclear weapons.

Worse, though, reported Reuters: “The United States and its ally South Korea are in talks toward sending further strategic U.S assets to the Korean peninsula.” Weapons being considered include an aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters, and submarines.

A better response would be for Seoul to announce a major military build-up. The Republic of Korea should boost its military outlays—which accounted for a paltry 2.4 percent of GDP in 2014, about one-tenth the estimated burden borne by the North. The ROK also should expand its armed forces from about 655,000 personnel today to a number much closer to the DPRK’s 1.2 million.

Doing so obviously would be a burden. But if the economic wreck to its north can create such a threatening military, why cannot the ROK, which enjoys a roughly 40-1 economic and 2-1 population advantage, meet the challenge?

It isn’t fair to compare the amount spent on a defense between North and South Korea. The North’s first priority is nuclear buildup at the expense of everything else, including food for its people. South Korea could, and should, do more to build up its own defense but it operates under budgets and voting the way all democracies do. If the political will isn’t there, the US will have to step back its obligations methodically.  

 America doesn’t protect allies just because it likes to root for an underdog. They protect them because stable democracies are not an aggressive military threat to their neighbors, they would rather engage in commerce. When the American Navy keeps sea lanes open it benefits everyone engaging in trade. Small countries like South Korea and Taiwan (ROC) couldn’t fend off an attack from a powerful Chinese military and the South China Sea could quickly become off-limits for American sailors and certain commercial vessels. Defense of Taiwan is part of a larger plan to keep the seas open and Beijing in check.

Doug Bandow is right in calling for America’s allies to step up financially and handle affairs where they can in their own neighborhoods. The current American ‘umbrella’ won’t last forever and a lot of nations could be left to fend for themselves. Money is tight everywhere and people rarely vote to build up the military in peace time. America’s role is crucial to world stability and it is the only option right now. 

Clash of Civilizations

No one has a good option for this refuge crisis. If one assumes the majority are from Syria and escaping a 5 year old civil war than the next step is asking bordering countries (usually) to take them in. Most people by now are aware of the problems of Syrian refugees:

http://theconversation.com/anti-immigrant-walls-and-racist-tweets-the-refugee-crisis-in-central-europe-43665

1. There is no way to tell if they are actually from Syria. One thing the Middle East has a lot of is economic misery. If large number of Syrians are crossing into multiple EU countries and overwhelming the ability of states to track asylum seekers, why wouldn't Egyptians, Algerians, Libyans, and other North Africans join the cluster? Life in Europe is far better whatever economic and social ills exist. This expands the problem from a refugee incident to a broader migrant one.

2. The EU countries make decisions collectively where immigrants are concerned. An increase in population in one country means in increase in all countries given the easy access to public services and transportation links (Schengen agreement) within the EU zone. When Germany decided to accept huge numbers of mostly Muslim migrants, it subjected the rest of the zone to the problems of crime and unemployment at play within their own borders. 

3. Refugee camps are miserable crime infested swamps that are slightly more appealing than a ravaged worn torn homeland; children in particular are subject to abuse. But at least they provide a holding area until some of the politics and legal constraints can be hammered out by host countries.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2015/09/reality-check-europe-refugee-crisis-150905084518848.html

4. The contrast between open liberal societies and closed Islamic ones should not be overstated. Much of the Middle East operates under some form of Sharia law which has an all-encompassing mandate. In other words, in doesn’t tolerate alternate legal codes or carve out exemptions for non-Muslims, Christians are constantly harassed and pushed out (see Yazidis). Young men from North Africa often see women as second class citizens and incidents of sexual assault are rising. Cologne, Germany was the scene for hundreds of complaints from women stating that ‘Young African Men’ groped them. Many said they were raped as well and that the police were ineffectual in stopping crime, and even seemed to cover up some of the worst incidents for fear of offending the migrant community.

The inevitable ‘clash of civilizations’ is underway and only a strong unified approach to the immigrant crisis will bring Europe through it. The difficulty for Germany in particular, is not losing the faith of citizens who rightfully feel they were forced into absorbing large chunks of people, many of who resent their way of life. This is a real mess for Europe with only bad options and a slim chance that the Continent retains its current union. The cultural differences would be tough to weather in good economic times, with the overwhelming numbers of migrants being absorbed into cities, towns and countryside villages, doubly so. This from the BBC:

§  The 28 member states have not agreed on an EU-wide mechanism for relocating migrants, meant to ease the burden on Greece and Italy. Only small groups have been relocated so far - and several states in Central and Eastern Europe refuse to accept migrants

§  The Schengen agreement on freedom of movement is in jeopardy - Hungary fenced off its borders with Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia; some other Schengen countries have re-imposed border controls: Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, France and Belgium

§  The Dublin regulation is not working effectively. Countries are no longer sending back migrants to their first point of entry to the EU

§  Thousands of migrants - many of them Syrian war refugees - still arrive daily from Turkey

§  Processing of asylum applications is slow and there is a big backlog - so reception centres are overcrowded

§  Germany - the main destination for migrants - is rethinking its open-door policy, partly because of outrage over assaults on women in Cologne at New Year

Clearly these countries are not on the same page with how to handle the crisis. The international press praised the German chancellor Angela Merkel when she agreed to accept 1 million migrants. With no plan in place for where to house and feed them, this promise can’t possibly hold. I can’t imagine what the least bad option is for Europe, but I think it has to do with getting Muslim majority countries to take in the majority of migrants that are desperate. If Germany and the EU can keep Greece afloat, which has no intention to repay its loans, they should be able to come to an agreement with Middle Eastern governments to resettle Muslims.  

Fear and Litigation

Sounds like the fear over a Ted Cruz victory is palpable among some high profile (rich) Democrats.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Texas lawyer has filed the first suit seeking clarification on whether Republican candidate Ted Cruz is eligible to be president because he was born in Canada.

Newton Schwartz, 85, of Houston also cited Cruz's stance on issues such as abortion rights, gay marriage and the Bible in a 27-page argument against the Texas senator's eligibility.

Billionaire Donald Trump, the front-runner in the Republican presidential race, has repeatedly questioned whether Cruz is eligible and warned he could be sued, throwing the party into chaos and handing the election to the Democrats.

A lawyer in Boston who reviewed the suit and who generally believes Cruz's eligibility should be questioned said the suit was "defective" and would most likely be thrown out.

Schwartz's suit, which cites a "crescendo" of questions over the matter, was filed on Thursday in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. It is a class action, meaning other people can join, and it requests that a court rule on the issue before November's presidential election.

"If I lose the suit that’s fine, he’s eligible, but if he’s elected and he’s determined to be ineligible after the election, that would cause massive confusion," Schwartz, a self-described liberal, said.

I am confused as to what Cruz’s stance on “abortion rights, gay marriage and the Bible…” have to do with this eligibility, but at least we know this ‘natural born citizen’ stuff is a ruse. As the article goes on to say, both John McCain and George Romney were born outside the United States.

article

Of Beats and Boredom

Every so often we get a revelation about ourselves and the special way our brain works. It can be like finding out where that elusive piece to the puzzle actually goes. You know the one with a speck of green plant overlaying stonework from somewhere in front of a 15^th century Irish castle. You didn’t want to do the damn puzzle anyway but thought it would be therapeutic because it forced you to put down your phone and turn of the tv. After flipping the jagged piece upside down, clockwise and counterclockwise hoping for a connection to the larger picture you finally figured it out. The rest of the puzzle came together much easier once the tricky piece found a home. For me the ‘piece’ was music. Music helps me write or at least get into the writing mood. When it is time to write, it is time for headphones. I don’t understand how music plays into writing but for me it does.

I enjoy the slow tempo, beat inspired, non-vocal electronica. It’s a little jazzy but with a consistent beat over the course of the track and has a looping element that feeds and inspires the rest of the song, something the song comes back to like a chorus but without vocals. Electronica works best for this type of sampling because the artist can use a sound clip like the famous ‘I have dream’ speech or a computer voice that repeats a common phrase and splice it into the track while slowing down or speeding up the background sounds.  I don’t know if the type of music matters but I can imagine anything too busy or chaotic would cause me to stop writing, stop thinking altogether. I love organization and order. Why would I not like my music to express order and grace, rhythm and consistency? Is there something about the structure of a piece of music that inspires orderly thought?

Music as a ‘help aid’ may be nothing more than an established pattern of behavior that tells the creative portion of my brain to start releasing…uh…well… creative stuff. The music in this case is nothing more than a placebo, a conditioned response to eclectic beats and slow paced drums keeping time. In college I would go to the library with my laptop and open a Pandora tab and a Word document and begin typing the upcoming assignment. My University library was a bit noisy and I needed to close out the surrounding confusion, so much for libraries being a place where everyone whispers. Naturally I selected relatively peaceful music with an emphasis on modern downtempo beats and as little singing as possible; singers are somehow distracting to my thinking brain. The music did something for me that music had never done before. It helped me focus. In high school I was distracted easily by tv noise, music in another room, brothers wrestling on the floor or electronic video game shooting sounds. I needed silence from everything. I am not sure when the puzzle came together for me and I realized that I needed to have a rhythmic tune in my ear in order to put thoughts together before typing them up. Like many things in life the piece was there all the time. I just needed to recognize it.  

I’ve studiously avoided listing artists and bands that I like because mostly I just let Pandora do the selecting. Here are some of my favorites though:

Christmas Blues

I've never been to Japan but my sense about celebrating Christmas as a holiday in non-Christian countries is that of understated reluctance. These guys are complaining about Christmas as a 'Capitalist' entity that discriminates against single men, how odd. Wonder what they would think about Christmas in America? My favorite quote from the article:
"In this world, money is extracted from people in love, and happy people support capitalism," 
I'll drink to that!
here

The IL-Liberal Campus

The debate on using Native American mascots for schools heated up in the early 2000’s in Champagne, Illinois. The school used the mascot Chief Illiniwek in most of the licensed apparel and in just about everything associated with sports. It’s hard to remember exactly how or why the chief became such an offensive symbol of genocide in America, but the students at the University had brought it to this point. Many student groups wanted the University to abolish all references to the Indian, something about giving offence, and stop using the mascot in sports ceremonies. The details of the controversy are a little foggy to me and I could goggle some of the specifics for clarity, but the argument seemed to hinge solely on the fact that American Indian mascots were offensive to Indians because they represented a negative stereotype. I thought the argument was silly then as I do now; the controversy seemed completely artificial and invented to create a victimized group out of whole cloth. Many native groups were supportive of the University’s efforts to use the Illiniwek mascot as a tribute to the tribes that lived in the central Illinois region. Supporters of the Indian always maintained that the mascot was a tribute and quite the opposite of ridiculing the plains Indians, they were showing respect.

 

The chief was a symbol, nothing more. It made no difference whether it was a racist image or a proud artifact, Illinois students should have rejected the effort to take out their mascot and change so much of the history of the school. College is the type of liberal center for debate that suggests all parties have a voice, no matter how ridiculous or divisive their motives. The price of not standing up to silly attacks on tradition when they occur is losing every attack that comes along afterward. Princeton students have convinced the academic higher ups to debate Woodrow Wilson’s legacy at the university here. This will no doubt include removing his name from countless buildings, scholarships and most historical artifacts associated with the Progressive Wilson. He held some terribly racist views even by the standards of his day but he is part of the history of America, good and bad.

 

Control is the real prize in cultural sensitivity battles and anyone who acquiesces does free speech and courage a real disservice. For every battle lost to sensitivity flag wavers another one is around the corner and it will cost something dearer and closer to home the next time. The college campus landscape has frequently been the ideological war zone for issue of the day whether foreign wars or sexual liberation. Much of what is taught and learned in college will play out in the professional world years after graduates have entered the marketplace. A big aspect of the tech boom in San Francisco that began with the sixties college graduates was due to a real understanding of an open market place and a hopeful optimism about the future. Their parents lived through a major depression and fought in a world war, they did not share the same hopeful energy about wealth and riches. Instilling a sense of gratitude about what freedom really costs to a generation used to getting everything for free is a tall order.

The generation currently stuffing their heads with cultural relativism and transgender theory classes are the next group to innovate and drive the economic engine of capitalism forward. They believe ‘safe spaces’ and ‘micro-aggressions' actually exist in the world outside of textbooks and late night study sessions. Or, if they are offended by some colleagues’ language or behavior toward them, they can escape to a room and imagine it away. Debate and free expression are disappearing on the very campuses where liberal ideas have always been welcomed and encouraged. Don’t take my word for it, listen to the professors who are beginning to come forward and lament the days when ideas were actually debated. Kids now want to have their debates sanitized lest the issues offend. This focus on hearing only what pleases the listener gives way to a generation of leaders that follow the voice of deception. It starts with mascot and ‘offensive’ symbols of racism, gender bias, male chauvinism and other ‘sins’ that traditional America is constantly criticized for. The academy should push back against silly demands from leftist student groups used to forcing every issue with marches and boycotts. Once faculties begin insisting on an educational focus in curriculum and say no to these kids and their demands, it will begin a chain reaction in other institutions. Colleges are as prone to the herd mentality as businesses. Are the teachers and faculty up to it?